Theft
Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with theft. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable
property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.-A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.-A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3.-A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4.-A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5.-The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Illustrations
(a) A cuts down a tree on Z's ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z's possession without Z's consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to such taking, he has committed theft.
(b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z's dog to follow it. Here, if A's intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z's possession without Z's consent, A has committed theft as soon as Z's dog has begun to follow A.
(c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure.
(d) A being Z's servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z's plate, dishonestly runs away with the plate, without Z's consent. A has committed theft.
(e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a warehouse, till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z's possession. It could not therefore be taken out of Z's possession, and A has not committed theft, though he may have committed criminal breach of trust.
(f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Z's possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.
(g) A finds a ring lying on the high-road, not in the possession
of any person. A, by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.
(h) A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z's house. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving the ring, commits theft.
(i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing to the jeweller any debt for which the jeweller might lawfully detain the watch as a security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z's hand, and carries it away. Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, inasmuch as what he did was not done dishonestly.
(j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z's possession, with the intention of depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly.
(k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z's possession without Z's consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch is his own property inasmuch as he takes it dishonestly.
(l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z's possession without Z's consent, with the intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here A takes dishonestly; A has therefor committed theft.
(m) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z's library in Z's absence, and takes away a book without Z's express consent for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z's implied consent to use Z's book. If this was A's impression, A has not committed theft.
(n) A asks charity from Z's wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z's wife is authorized to give away alms. If this was A's impression, A has not committed theft.
(o) A is the paramour of Z's wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has not authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.
(p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A's own property, takes that property out of B's possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.
Section 378, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 303 Theft Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-18.pdf 2019-05-09. Crl.A. 875/2019 (with 876-877/2019). R. Banumathi J. REPORTABLE. DATE-CHECK false positive (PDB death 03.07.2004 / Will 18.04.1999 / probate 19.07.2004 in the facts); body is the named theft-of-documents reportable. Isolates IPC 378: theft requires dishonest moving of movable property; information or photocopies of documents whose originals remain with the complainant are not ‘movable property’ stolen; temporary removal to photocopy is not theft (Pyare Lal Bhargava). Complaint qua documents 1–28 (originals still in custody) quashed; missing-original documents 29–54 can proceed. Carry bns 303 successor (mapping.csv near-identical 0.9504). Do not pad ipc 380/403/411 (already filled).
On this section: IPC 378 theft requires dishonest moving of movable property; photocopying documents whose originals remain with the owner, or using the information in court, is not theft (Birla Corporation).
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: Definition of theft as dishonest taking of movable property out of possession of person without consent; applied to minerals stolen from government land
-
Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where conduct constitutes an offence under both the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the MMDR Act do not impliedly or explicitly exclude prosecution under the IPC. Police can register FIR, investigate and submit charge sheets for theft of minerals under IPC Sections 378-379 based on discovery of unauthorized removal of minerals from government land. Magistrates can take cognizance of theft offences on police reports under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC without awaiting complaint from authorized MMDR officer. However, for offences constituting breach of mining lease or unauthorized mining specifically under MMDR Act Section 21, cognizance by Magistrate can only be taken upon complaint in writing by person authorized by Central or State Government as required by MMDR Act Section 22. These are distinct offences with different ingredients and prosecution for both does not violate Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy provided person is not punished twice for identical offence. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that natural resources are national assets requiring protection through multiple enforcement mechanisms. Police duty under Sections 149-152 CrPC to prevent cognizable offences includes authority and responsibility to investigate illegal mining even without prior authorization from mining authorities.
On this section: Definition of theft and punishment; applied to unauthorized removal of sand and minerals from government land; ingredients found distinct from MMDR violations
-
Mayank Agrawal vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint alleges theft of movable property but the alleged property was never in the possession of the complainant at the time of the alleged taking, the essential ingredient of theft under Section 378 IPC is absent, and the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence. Therefore, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash such proceedings as an abuse of the process of court. Additionally, when a complaint is manifestly attended with mala fide and appears to have been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private and personal grudge, the High Court should quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.
On this section: Definition of theft - the court analyzed all five explanations and twelve illustrations to establish that theft requires the property to be in the possession of another person at the time of taking. The court found that since the complainant had no possession of the quarter or goods, the essential ingredient of theft was missing.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 378
What have the courts held on Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code?
Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited (09 May 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IPC 378 theft requires dishonest moving of movable property; photocopying documents whose originals remain with the owner, or using the information in court, is not theft (Birla Corporation). Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 378, section 378 IPC, section 378 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 378 in bns and ipc 378 379. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited (09 May 2019).
What should I read with Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 303 (Theft), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 378, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
- 350. Criminal force667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.